You are here: / Negligence
, , , ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants in this Child Victims Act case against the school district for negligent hiring, retention and supervision did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff-student by a custodian. Therefore the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

“To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent supervision, it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … .

Here, the defendants’ evidence included testimony given by the plaintiff during his deposition that he was abused on dozens of occasions over three to four years, that there were several other students who were similarly abused, and that other custodians employed by the District were present in the school building after hours and on weekends and saw the plaintiff alone with the custodian in the building. Thus, contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to establish, prima facie, that the District lacked constructive notice of the custodian’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . PC-14 Doe v Lawrence Union Free Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 05693, Second Dept 10-15-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how a question of fact is raised about a school-defendant’s constructive notice of sexual abuse of a student by a school employee.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUGHT HER HEEL AND CAUSED HER TO FALL, THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT A MIS-LEVELED CONCRETE SLAB CAUSED THE FALL COULD ALLOW THE JURY TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE WITHOUT RESORT TO SPECULATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been denied. Plaintiff testified “something caught her heel” when she was walking backwards from a gravel driveway to the garage and she fell onto concrete in the garage. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, but the circumstantial evidence indicated her heel caught on the mis-leveled concrete slab:

​… [W]e conclude that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the cause of plaintiff’s fall was speculative … . ” ‘Although [mere] conclusions based upon surmise, conjecture, speculation or assertions are without probative value . . . , a case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence may be established if the plaintiff[ ] show[s] facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant[ ] and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred’ ” … .

Although plaintiff testified that she did not know what caught her heel and caused the fall, she also stated that she fell in the immediate vicinity of the entry to the garage from the gravel driveway and landed inside the garage. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party … , we conclude that the testimony and the allegations in the bill of particulars regarding the mis-leveled concrete slab “render[ed] any other potential cause of her fall ‘sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ” … . Withers v Roblee, 2025 NY Slip Op 05620, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff could not say precisely what “caught her heel” and caused her to fall, but the circumstantial evidence was such that a jury could determine the cause without resort to speculation. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER IN THE 70’S, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH SUPPORTED THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, TRAINING AND HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the negligent supervision, negligent training, and negligent hiring and retention causes of action against the school district, based on allegations of sexual abuse of plaintiff by a music teacher in the 70’s, should not have been dismissed. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendants included the observed behavior of the music teacher by another teacher, the dismissal of the music teacher from other schools, the conflicting information about arrests in the teacher’s employment applications, the suspicions of other teachers and the failure to report those suspicions:

… [P]laintiff submitted an affidavit wherein he averred that on two occasions the music teacher entered the boys’ locker room while plaintiff and his classmates were changing and that on each occasion the gym teacher instructed the music teacher to leave. Although the gym teacher denied observing the music teacher in the boys’ locker room during his deposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit that the gym teacher executed in an unrelated case wherein he averred that he had “heard rumors from many students” that the music teacher had a sexual interest in the male students at the school and that he was “suspicious that [the music teacher] may have had inappropriate relationships with students.” The affidavit reflects that the gym teacher was “vigilant” and “kept an eye on” the music teacher—meeting weekly with another coach to “see if the other had witnessed any inappropriate behavior” by the music teacher—but nonetheless permitted the music teacher to transport students to and from games and swim meets.

* * * [[P]laintiff submitted the music teacher’s testimony, wherein he testified that he had “always” had students visit him at his home and that other teachers were aware that students would visit him at his home, where the abuse of plaintiff is, in part, alleged to have occurred … . …

Plaintiff also submitted an expert affidavit asserting that defendants failed to appropriately train and supervise other teachers and staff to report their knowledge of inappropriate behavior. * * *

… [D]efendants submitted the music teacher’s employment applications, wherein he submitted contradictory responses about whether he had been arrested; a reference from the principal of a junior high school where the music teacher had taught, who stated that the music teacher had been “dismissed or denied tenure” and “had a tendency to more or less pal with his seventh grade male students”; and a reference completed by a school counselor employed by a different district, who stated that the music teacher had been “dismissed or denied tenure” and that she would not employ him as a teacher in her school system. Harper v Buffalo City Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 05595, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of the proof which will raise questions of fact in a Child Victims Act case against a school district alleging negligent supervision, training, hiring and retention.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A DEFECTIVELY MAINTAINED AND/OR INSTALLED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALLOWED A SIGNAL HEAD IN EACH DIRECTION TO SHOW A GREEN LIGHT, THEREBY CAUSING THE INTERSECTION COLLISION; ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, THE PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE “FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE INTERSECTION IN A SAFE CONDITION” AND “CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION” CAUSES OF ACTION, AND THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint, determined the complaint and bill of particulars sufficiently alleged negligence and questions of fact were raised about whether the county failed to properly maintain a traffic signal and created a dangerous condition. The plaintiff alleged a pipe holding the traffic signal broke allowing it to rotate 90 degrees such that at least one of the signal heads in each direction showed a green light, causing the intersection collision. The fact that the county demonstrated it did not have notice of the defective traffic signal did not affect the viability of the “failure to maintain the intersection in a safe condition” and the “creation of a dangerous condition” causes of action:

“A municipality has a duty to maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition” … . “[T]he municipality breaches such duty if it permits a dangerous or potentially dangerous condition to exist and cause injury” … . Here, to meet its burden on that part of the motion seeking summary judgment, defendant was required to “demonstrate that it maintained the intersection in a reasonably safe condition and that it neither created the alleged defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice of same” … .

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact by submitting the affidavit of his expert … . We also agree with plaintiff that questions of fact exist with respect to whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies here … . Duncan v Town of Greece, 2025 NY Slip Op 05588, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: The municipality’s lack of notice of a dangerous condition, here an allegedly defective traffic signal, does not affect the viability of causes of action alleging the failure to maintain the intersection in a safe condition and/or the municipality’s creation of the dangerous condition.​

 

, , , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE, THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY OR IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county did not have immunity in this Child Victims Act lawsuit alleging negligent foster-care placement of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused by her foster father in the late 70’s:

“The governmental function immunity defense provides immunity for the exercise of discretionary authority during the performance of a governmental function” … . “[T]he governmental function immunity defense cannot attach unless the municipal defendant establishes that the discretion possessed by its employees was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated” … .

… [T]he County failed to establish, prima facie, that the relevant acts of the County’s employees relating to the alleged negligent supervision of the plaintiff’s foster care placement were discretionary and thus entitled to immunity … . … [E]ven if the acts at issue could potentially be considered discretionary, the County failed to demonstrate that the alleged discretion was in fact exercised in relation to the conduct on which liability is predicated … .

… Contrary to the County’s contention, it “was not entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to Social Services Law § 419, as qualified immunity does not bar recovery for the negligent supervision of children in foster care” … . M.W. v Nassau County, 2025 NY Slip Op 05550, Second Dept 10-8-25

Practice Point: Use this decision as a starting point for research into how governmental function immunity and immunity under the Social Services Law apply to a county foster-care placement. Here the court determined neither type of immunity applied in this Child Victims Act lawsuit.

 

, ,

WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH WORK IS PERFORMED, A GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE STEMS FROM THE EXERCISE OF SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY; INFORMING THE WORKER OF WHAT WORK SHOULD BE DONE, MONITORING THE TIME AND QUALITY OF THE WORK, ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY REGULATIONS, AND HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK FOR SAFETY REASONS, DO NOT AMOUNT TO THE EXERCISE OF “SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant general contractor’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should have been granted because defendant did not exercise supervisory authority over plaintiff’s work. The Fourth Department took pains to describe what does not constitute the exercise of supervisory authority:

… [T]he court erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to the portions of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action alleging negligence in the manner in which work was performed. It is well settled that ” ‘[w]here the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor’s methods and the [defendant] exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the [defendant] under the common law or under Labor Law § 200’ ” … .

Here, defendant established as a matter of law that it ” ‘did not actually direct or control’ ” the work [plaintiff was hired to do.] Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, ” ‘[t]here is no direction or control if the [general contractor merely] informs the worker what work should be performed . . . [;] there is direction and control [only where the general contractor] specifies how that work should be performed’ ” … . “Similarly, ‘a general duty to ensure compliance with safety regulations or the authority to stop work for safety reasons’ ” … , or even the ” ‘monitoring and oversight of the timing and quality of the work’ ” … are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant exercised direction and control over the manner of plaintiff’s work. Szlapak v The L.C. Whitford, Co., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05385, Fourth Dept 10-3-25

Practice Point: Informing a worker of what work is to be done, monitoring the time and quality of the work, ensuring compliance with safety regulations, having the authority to stop work for safety reasons, do not constitute the “the exercise of supervisory authority” such that a general contractor can be liable under Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence for the manner in which the work was done.

 

, ,

THE CONFLICTING EXPERT REPORTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CAUSED SERIOUS INJURY DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S PREEXISTING CONDITIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Michael, determined Supreme Court properly denied summary judgment on the question whether plaintiff’s decedent, Kenneth Moore, suffered “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102(d) in a traffic accident. The conflicting expert evidence raised questions of fact about whether the accident exacerbated preexisting conditions, including arthritis

… [A] preexisting condition does not foreclose a finding that the plaintiff’s injuries were causally related to the subject accident … . Where a defendant meets its prima facie burden in establishing that the preexisting condition is the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence addressing causation … .

To meet his burden, the plaintiff must address the evidence of preexisting conditions “and explain why [his] current reported symptoms [are] not related to the preexisting conditions” or how the accident aggravated his underlying degenerative conditions … . * * *

… [P]laintiff’s evidence, including conflicting expert reports; testimony as to Moore’s increased pain and diminished physical capabilities; and medical records showing a new course of treatment, new diagnoses, and aggravated injuries, raised issues of fact as to whether Moore’s worsened physical condition was causally related to the accident … . Moore v Maley, 2025 NY Slip Op 05304, First Dept 10-2-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an an explanation of how to deal with a plaintiff’s preexisting conditions when assessing whether plaintiff has suffered “serious injury” in a traffic accident within the meaning of the Insurance Law.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER, PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE SCHOOL PROPERLY SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS, BUT THE DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE DIOCESE DID NOT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a dissent, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a dissenting opinion, affirmed the denial of the school’s and the Episcopal Diocese’s motions to dismiss the complaint in this Child Victims Act action stemming from the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff-student by a teacher (Mr. Bravo). The majority affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the request for punitive damages against the school but dismissed the demand for punitive damages against the Diocese. The dissent argued the demand for punitive damages against the school should also have been dismissed:

Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages against the School was … properly sustained at this prediscovery stage of the litigation … . Contrary to the dissent’s position, this Court has found claims for punitive damages may be appropriate in certain negligence cases … . Specifically,”[p]unitive damages in actions involving negligent hiring, retention, or supervision generally require conduct evincing a high degree of moral culpability, so flagrant as to transcend simple carelessness, or which constitutes willful or wanton negligence or recklessness so as to evince a conscious disregard for the rights of others” … . A “conscious disregard” requires knowledge, or actual notice, of the potential of harm to others … . The complaint alleges that the School was given actual notice that Mr. Bravo was sexually abusing plaintiff and then failed to adequately investigate the allegations to such an extent that suggests ulterior motives. Further, the dissent is mistaken in its belief that plaintiff’s denial of the abuse during a meeting with school administrators negates the actual notice received by the School from the parents of her friends and a therapist, which, by itself, triggered a statutorily required response that the School did not fully implement … . * * *

Given that punitive damages are “awarded only in ‘singularly rare cases,'” they are appropriately reserved for those cases which allege that the defendants, despite having actual knowledge of the perpetrator’s propensity for the sexual abuse of children, concealed that knowledge or otherwise knowingly underresponded to that information so as to suggest that they dismissed all concern for the rights of others in favor of their own self-interest … . As plaintiff here has not alleged the knowledge required to infer any improper state of mind on behalf of the Episcopal Diocese, her demand for punitive damages against the Episcopal Diocese should be dismissed … . C.R. v Episcopal Diocese of N.Y., 2025 NY Slip Op 05144, First Dept 9-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the allegations in a Child Victims Act complaint which will support the denial of a motion to dismiss a request for punitive damages.

 

, , ,

THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE WERE NOT INTERTWINED; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT THAT THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; IN RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, THE JUDGE PROPERLY TOLD THEM THEY COULD FIND THAT THE ACCIDENT DID NOT HAPPEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to set aside the verdict finding the defendant negligent but that the negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident should not have been set aside. The plaintiff alleged repair to the steering mechanism of his van was negligently done, that he suddenly lost the ability to steer the van and it crashed into a concrete barrier which was parallel to the roadway. The evidence was such that the jury could have found the accident did not happen in the way alleged by the plaintiff. The damage to the van did not appear to be consistent with the accident as described by plaintiff. When the jury sent a note asking whether they could find that the accident didn’t happen, the trial judge properly told them they could so find:

The narrow question we must address to determine this appeal is whether the Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside so much of the jury verdict as, upon finding that the defendants were negligent, found that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing injury to the plaintiff … . We answer this question in the negative, holding that the court erred by, in effect, granting those branches of the plaintiff’s motion where, as here, issues of negligence and proximate cause are not inextricably intertwined as a result of there being a rational view of the evidence that the plaintiff’s accident did not occur as claimed. Additionally, this appeal provides the opportunity to state our view that, in a personal injury action where there were questions about whether the alleged injury-producing event actually occurred as claimed by the plaintiff here, it was not error for the court to respond to a jury note by instructing that the jury could consider whether the alleged accident occurred. * * *

If, as the Supreme Court concluded in this instance, the jury’s deliberation involved an uncomplicated determination of whether the defendants had negligently installed the pitman arm of the plaintiff’s van, which, in turn, resulted in the plaintiff’s loss of steering and the accident as described, then the jury’s finding of negligence without a finding of proximate cause would be inconsistent. But the trial evidence was not so uncomplicated as to be subject to only one view of the events. Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants, as we must in these instances, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences upon which the jury could parse the alleged negligent repair from the alleged proximate cause and determine that while the defendants were negligent, they were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s claimed accident … . Krohn v Schultz Ford Lincoln, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05072, Second Dept 9-24-25

Practice Point: Here the jury concluded the defendant’s repair of plaintiff’s van was negligent, but they also concluded the negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident. That verdict should not have been set aside. The evidence was such that the jury could have found that the accident as described by the plaintiff didn’t happen. The judge properly instructed them in response to a note that they could so find.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS SAID THE LIGHT WAS RED, PLAINTIFF SAID THE LIGHT WAS GREEN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PRECLUDED, CREDIBILTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this intersection bicycle-vehicle accident case, reminds us that credibility plays no role in a summary judgment ruling. Plaintiff, the bicyclist, alleged he entered the intersection with a green light. Defendant and a witness alleged plaintiff entered the intersection against a red light. The conflicting evidence required denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment:

The parties’ conflicting versions of how the accident occurred preclude summary judgment … . It is well settled that a “court’s role in deciding a motion for summary judgment is issue finding, not issue determination. . . . Moreover, [i]t is not the court’s function on a motion for summary judgment to assess credibility” … . Plaintiff’s version of events “is not incredible as a matter of law, and the different versions of the facts submitted by the parties raise[ ] credibility questions for a jury to resolve” … . Wachtel v Alan Joel Communications, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05053, First Dept 9-23-25

Practice Point: Credibility plays no role at the summary judgment stage.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy